Thomas v. Cate
Filing
6
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PETITIONERS 5 MOTION TO DIRECT STATE COURT TO PROVIDE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
LARRY DARNELL THOMAS,
4
Petitioner,
5
ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
DIRECT STATE COURT TO
PROVIDE TRIAL
TRANSCRIPTS
v.
6
No. C 11-4709 CW (PR)
MATTHEW CATE,
7
8
Respondent.
(Docket no. 5)
________________________________/
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for
11
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
12
his state conviction.
13
motion to stay the petition while he exhausts his ineffective
14
assistance of counsel claims in state court.
On October 26, 2011, the Court granted his
15
Now pending is Petitioner’s motion asking this Court to
16
direct the California superior court to provide him with a missing
17
portion of his state trial transcripts or, alternatively, to grant
18
summary judgment in his favor.
19
(1) that he was never provided with a transcript of the first
20
portion (Volume I) of his state criminal and trial proceedings;
21
(2) neither his trial nor appellate attorney have a copy of the
22
transcript; (3) his former attorney has attempted to assist him in
23
obtaining a copy of Volume I but has been unsuccessful; and
24
(4) even the superior court does not have a copy of the
25
transcript.
26
first portion of the trial may not have been transcribed.
27
28
Specifically, Petitioner states
Based on the above, Petitioner speculates that the
The Court must deny Petitioner’s motion.
Federal district
courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts,
state judicial officers, or other state officials in the
2
performance of their duties.
3
925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
cannot order the state court or any other state official to
5
provide Petitioner with the missing volume of the transcript,
6
assuming such portion of the trial was in fact transcribed.
7
In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying
8
petition for writ of mandamus that would order state trial court
9
to give petitioner access to certain trial transcripts which he
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition;
11
federal court may not, as a general rule, issue mandamus to a
12
state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court
13
litigation).
14
See Demos v. U.S. District Court,
Consequently, this Court
See
However, a state’s failure to provide a full record of a
15
trial may violate a defendant’s due process rights and form the
16
basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
17
F.2d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 1989).
18
determination: (1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in
19
connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought; and
20
(2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the
21
same functions as a transcript.
22
petitioner must establish prejudice from the lack of recordation
23
to be entitled to habeas corpus relief.
See Madera v. Risley, 885
Two criteria are relevant to this
See id.
A federal habeas
See id. at 649.
24
If Petitioner intends to assert a claim in the present
25
petition for the violation of his right to due process based on
26
his inability to obtain a portion of the trial transcript, he can
27
do so only after he has exhausted state remedies as to that claim
28
in state court and then moves to lift the stay and amend the
2
1
2
present petition to include all of his exhausted claims.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to have this Court direct
3
the California superior court to provide him with his trial
4
transcripts or, alternatively, to grant summary judgment in his
5
favor, is DENIED.
6
This Order terminates Docket no. 5.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated:
12/28/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?